FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF ANDRZEJCZAK v. POLAND

(Application no. 28940/08)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 January 2013

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Andrzejczak v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Päivi Hirvelä, President,
	Ledi Bianku,
	Paul Mahoney, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 28940/08) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms Łucja Andrzejczak (“the applicant”), on 15 May 2008.
2.  The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3.  On 30 August 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  On 23 January 2003 the applicant requested the County Building Inspector to assess whether her neighbours had extended their property lawfully. The construction works took place between 1969 and 1974. After the proceedings which aimed to identify the parties to the dispute had finished, the County Building Inspector commenced the proper proceedings on 21 January 2005.
5.  On 8 November 2005 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings finding that all the construction works had been conducted legally. The inspector relied on witnesses’ testimonies since all the documents had gone missing. The Regional Building Inspector upheld the decision on 7 April 2006.
6.  In the meantime the applicant lodged a complaint with the Wielkoposki Governor about inactivity of the County Building Inspector. On 8 June 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the 8 November 2005 decision had not been examined timeously.
7.  The applicant applied for judicial review of the Regional Building Inspector’s decision. On 6 June 2007 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court quashed both decisions stating that the evidence gathered was not sufficient for reaching any conclusions.
8.  On 15 June 2008 the applicant sent a letter to the Regional Building Inspector pointing to the fact that the decision had not been taken although over a year had elapsed since the court’s judgment and complaining about the length of the proceedings before the County Building Inspector. On 2 July 2008 the Regional Inspector advised the County Inspector on the need to deal with the case.
9.  On 13 November 2008 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings. On 23 January the Regional Building Inspector quashed the decision and remitted the case.
10.  Finally on 30 November 2009 the County Building Inspector discontinued the proceedings.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
11.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
12.  The Government contested that argument.
13.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 23 January 2003 and ended on 30 November 2009. It thus lasted six years and ten months for three levels of jurisdiction during which two decisions were quashed and the case remitted twice.
A.  Admissibility
14.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
15.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
16.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above).
17.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case‑law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A.  Damage
19.  The applicant claimed for pecuniary damage without indicating exact sums.
20.  The Government contested the claim.
21.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B.  Default interest
22.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Fatoş Aracı	Päivi Hirvelä
	Deputy Registrar	President